[Wikiversity-l] Credentials, diplomas & provenance

[Michael R. Irwin]

Morley Chalmers wrote:

>The issue of credentials and authority keeps coming up. Inevitably keeps
>coming up. Therefore I am proposing a comprehensive statement on these
>topics specifically aimed at orienting newcomers.
>
>Before I poke a stick into a hornets nest, I'm asking for feedback here.
>Please say whether you like what follows or not and why. Please post your
>positives, as well as your negatives and revisions. Let's put together
>something that won't embarrass before posting to the newcomers page ‹ where
>it can then be further edited as much as anyone likes.
>
>There are pointers to other pages within the text. I'd appreciate someone to
>link to the relevant live pages.
>
>
>
>===Credentials, diplomas & provenance===
>
>The Wikiversity follows in the traditions of the Wikipedia, in other words
>collaborative creation and editing without reference to higher authority.
>[[What does that mean in practice?]] {The following appears on a separate
>page, available by clicking the above link.}
>  
>
This is incorrect. Wikipedia has always had a "higher authority". Jimmy 
Wales acted as such from the first and then later appointed the Arbcom. 
Just because "authority" is rarely used or necessary does not mean it 
does not exist.

>* Will I earn a diploma at the Wikiversity?
>:No, that's one thing we don't do. This is about the learning itself, by
>itself. You cannot earn credentials here. But you can learn here and then
>earn your credentials elsewhere.
>
>* Are there exams at the Wikiversity?
>:Some course leaders may post some questionnaires so you can assess your
>learning progress. Course leaders may also give personal feedback on their
>observations of your progress. But there's no passing grade, no way to
>achieve status by your participation here.
>
>* Who gets to decide what gets posted here?
>:You do. Go ahead and post, no permission required. This project has no
>set-in-stone identification of authorship. Anything can be posted by anyone
>and then revised by anyone at any time. Each version is preserved. You can
>easily step back and compare one version to any other, see who performed the
>edits and communicate with those editors.
>  
>
Perhaps "You do" should be "We do". "Anything" is incorrect. Hate speech 
is unacceptable. Propaganda used as propaganda is unacceptable. Many 
people will find much material inoffensive and request it be modifed 
"collaboratively" or deleted. Perhaps the editor of this paragraph 
should consult the submittal form.


>:If you're an expert (or, better, "have proven expertise"), you need to
>prove that through your actions here, and be prepared to work with others in
>collaboration - just as they must likewise be prepared to work with you.
>This encouraging of equal participation is a positive factor in building a
>healthy community of learning, for the sake of learning.
>  
>
Experts do not need to "prove" anything. Everybody needs to be willing 
to discuss or reason with others. Appeal to non present or non proven 
authority is not the normal expectation here. Much less is learn by 
authoritatively stating a fact with no supporting reasoning than a 
reasoned dialogue showing a neophyte the reasons, assumptions, etc. that 
make a commonly accepted fact in a given field of expertise commonly 
accepted.

>* How is "inappropriate" material kept off the site?
>:It isn't (except for Bombmaking 101 and similar). It's '''you''' who
>decides what's appropriate. There's no higher bureaucracy "authorizing"
>publication. (Copyrighted material is immediately removed, on discovery).
>  
>
"Inappropriate material" is kept off the site. Who determines what is 
"inappropriate". Commonly we the community. Occasionally the employees, 
directors or owners of the Wikimedia Foundation who provide the servers.

>:There are indeed senior custodians who debate what's an abuse and take
>corrective measures. These individuals earn whatever status they have by
>their past actions. That's the limit of their power and of any hierarchy at
>the Wikiversity.
>  
>
This is incorrect in its implications. "Senior custodians" have no 
implicit or explicit authority to decide beyond newcomers. They have an 
ability and responsibility to take certain actions consistent with the 
needs and norms of the project and the community.

>* What if someone wrecks a perfectly good course?
>:It's you who decides (at least in your eyes). Use the History tab at the
>top of the page and find the older version you like. Go ahead and use that
>version. Or better yet, integrate what you liked about the older version
>into the current version. You can also "fork" a course into two equivalent
>and equal versions covering the same subject but in different styles.
>Nothing at the Wikiversity is "definitive".
>
>* How can I determine whether the material here is any good?
>:By trying it out. It's your judgement call. If you can make it better, go
>ahead and edit. Note that every page has a Discussion area where you can
>post your observations and questions. You can review the History of a page,
>see who wrote which version and enter into dialogue with these individuals.
>Together we can, and will, make the material here stronger and stronger.
>
>* Who's authorized to teach?
>:You are, no credentials required. Yes, you can set yourself up as a teacher
>of anything, with or without any prior experience in the subject. If your
>students like the process, good, they'll probably continue working with you.
>If not, they'll likely wander away. You'll find all kinds of individuals
>teaching here, retired professional academics, currently active ones, people
>from industry and the self-taught with no formal qualifications at all. Ask
>course leaders for their backgrounds, or not.
>
>* If I teach, will I get paid, can I charge my students?
>:No, not through the Wikiversity. You can ask for donations if you like, but
>offsite and independently. We frown on fees as against the spirit of the
>Wikiversity. But we can't control such a practice, do not have the resources
>to police it. If we discover you're '''requiring''' payment for an online
>course conducted within the Wikiversity website or using the Wikiversity
>site itself to solicit donations we most likely will take action against
>you. The Wikiversity is free to all.
>
>* Can I download materials here and use them in my own offsite classes? Can
>I revise the materials? Must I make attribution to the Wikiversity?
>:Yes, yes and no. Download and use. [[Check here for how our learning
>materials are protected]] {Page reference to come} And definitely revise.
>Better yet, post your revisions back to the Wikiversity. Also post your
>experiences using the materials to the page's Discussion area. Give back and
>make the Wikiversity better. Finally, attributions to the Wikiversity are
>welcome but not required.
>  
>
Attributions are required by the GPL and Wikiversity has no right to 
waive this requirement for individual submitters. I would say it is 
acceptable to provide a link to Wikiversity specific enough to find the 
history of the starting point of the newly tailored materials. This is 
common in academic materials so it should not be a major problem to 
provide the link for starting source material.

>* Who pays for the Wikiversity?
>:You do, by donations. [[Here's how you can make a donation]] {link to come}
>(entirely voluntary). Notice there's no advertising on the Wikiversity.
>We're non-commercial, entirely run by volunteers, operating costs covered by
>donations, from people like you.
>
>The Wikiversity is a facility for learning.
>  
>

In general, I would prefer the orientation of the text to be the 
community including the newcomer vs. the singular "You do(s)". There is 
lot less individual freedom or anarchy than this consistent "you do" 
implies. Ultimately the front page material will be like a Wikipedia 
page with many eyeballs focused historically and at present time. 
Certainly there can be a lot more freedom in more specialized or 
tailored courses off the beaten track but the above implies complete 
anarchy do as you please which will not last long.

Raising expectations for a few hours or days that newcomer's can do 
totally as they individually please can generate quite a system shock 
when they encounter their first few consensus building exercises 
necessary to change existing prose, lessons, excercises, notes, facts, 
assumptions, policies, etc.

regards,
mirwin